search

gbif / backbone-feedback

2 stars 0 forks source link

incorrect publication associated with Fylgia amazonica Kirby, 1889 #138

Open gbif-portal opened 1 year ago

gbif-portal commented 1 year ago

incorrect publication associated with Fylgia amazonica Kirby, 1889

This message was originally sent to Helpdesk:

The original description is said to have been published in Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London: 12 (9): 249-348, incl. pl. 51-57. This is incorrect, it was published in the Transactions of the ZSL. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/31019709#page/393/mode/1up

The user also note that it would be helpful to cite the page (+ plate where relevant) where the species in question is described, especially for long papers.

Github user: @ManonGros User: See in registry - Send email System: Safari 16.1.0 / Mac OS X 10.15.7 Referer: https://www.gbif.org/species/5052140 Window size: width 1601 - height 859 API log&_a=(columns:!(_source),filters:!(),index:'3390a910-fcda-11ea-a9ab-4375f2a9d11c',interval:auto,query:(language:kuery,query:''),sort:!())) Site log&_a=(columns:!(_source),filters:!(),index:'5c73f360-fce3-11ea-a9ab-4375f2a9d11c',interval:auto,query:(language:kuery,query:''),sort:!())) System health at time of feedback: OPERATIONAL

ManonGros commented 1 year ago

Not sure where the reference publication information comes from, I don't see it in the CoL corresponding page: https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/6JTCL Is this an issue for the CoL or did the information come from another source? @thomasstjerne @mdoering

mdoering commented 1 year ago

That's not easy to tell, not even from the logs. There have been 4 other sources that could have contributed the publication. Or it was in COL at the time we created the backbone (2022-11-22): https://www.checklistbank.org/dataset/9845/taxon/6JTCL

Kirby, W. F. A revision of the subfamily Libellulinae, with descriptions of new genera and genera. [Date important, cf Selys' Odonates de Sumatra]. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London: 12 (9): 249-348, incl. pl. 51-57. (1889).

So yes, it was like that in COL at that time and has been removed since.